You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
The club tried to get it taken out of the PLs hand and Commercial Court said nah, they have jurisdiction. *If* and that’s a big if, the club were found guilty, no doubt higher courts would have a kick around the tyres.I think a PL ‘panel’ will find it impossible to prove fraud and/or concealment. Also, if it was fraud, on the scale alleged, it would be sitting in a far higher court than a PL panel.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Agreed. The UK Law on the Statutes of Limitations isn't specific to a crime. It's the size of the crime committed.I think a PL ‘panel’ will find it impossible to prove fraud and/or concealment. Also, if it was fraud, on the scale alleged, it would be sitting in a far higher court than a PL panel.
If we've committed fraud on the level the PL are suggesting, the PL are lawfully bound to alert the authorities. Herein lies a clue.
Also, let's say we DID inflate our income to circumvent FFP, we paid a far higher rate of tax for doing so, so I can't see HMRC being arsed because they got more tax revenue from us.
Our owners are investing BILLIONS into the UK, whilst the Red Top Mafia owners (the Glazer's in particular) have just rinsed their clubs dry, so again I can't see the UK Government being that arsed about alleged bullshit FFP breaches either.
It's not like our owner has come in, committed serious fraud, bled the club dry leaving us bankrupt, & fled the country.
ManUre, The Dippers, Arse & Spuds are big to their respective fans, but that's it. The Government have got a country in deep trouble to run, so I doubt they'll allow the jumped up PL to get in the way of their re-election bid.
It's just common sense geo-politics innit? ¯\_(⊙_ʖ⊙)_/¯
Yes, hopefully the PL have over-reached with the severity of the charges.I think a PL ‘panel’ will find it impossible to prove fraud and/or concealment.
Yes. I expect the PL will be required ab initio to show why the statute does not apply if they insist on pursuing the oldest items. This is a huge hurdle, if they can’t jump it then their whole case looks weak.Pretty sure this is incorrect. If fraud/concealment is proved then the statute of limitations doesn't apply.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Limitation period. And I’m pretty sure it does, but from the date of discovery, not the date of the alleged fraud/concealment.Pretty sure this is incorrect. If fraud/concealment is proved then the statute of limitations doesn't apply.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
CAS's view (which admittedly involves Swiss Law) was that the limitation period was based on the date the case was referred to the Adjudicatory Panel, which is basically the date on which the charges were officially laid.Limitation period. And I’m pretty sure it does, but from the date of discovery, not the date of the alleged fraud/concealment.
The PL equivalent will presumably be the date the case was passed to the Independent Panel, which was February 2023. That means any contracts or transactions in the 2016/17 financial year and subsequent years.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
That makes sense because in a civil claim the date you count back from is the date of issue of the claim. I seem to recall that the day the cause of action accrues is excluded from the calculation so it’s actually six years and one day in practical terms for contractual claims.CAS's view (which admittedly involves Swiss Law) was that the limitation period was based on the date the case was referred to the Adjudicatory Panel, which is basically the date on which the charges were officially laid.
The PL equivalent will presumably be the date the case was passed to the Independent Panel, which was February 2023. That means any contracts or transactions in the 2016/17 financial year and subsequent years.
prestonibbo_mcfc
Well-Known Member
Maybe we can get A sort of PPI claim.But they don't have a choice. Teams can't compete in the competitions if they don't sign up.
Good post. If the PL are so certain that we have committed fraud they should have referred the case to the Serious Fraud Office. On the basis that they have not done that it suggests to me that the 115 charges are simply a smear campaign against City and are designed to appease the baying mob made up mostly of fans that support old big teams suffering from year on year under performance.View attachment 101994
So here's a strange thing... A UK Lawyer said that the PL state in their memorandums of articles & association that they operate in accordance with UK Law. However, a statute of limitations of 6 months for minor criminal offences, & 6 years for civil, contract & debt cases exists in UK Law.
The only area where there's no statute of limitations, is for serious criminal offences typically tried at the Crown Court.
The Lawyer then said, at best he believes the PL adjudication panel can only go back to offences committed from 2017 onwards. Anything prior to this is time barred in UK Law.
Now this doesn't mean the PL can't go back pre-2017 in their own internal processes, but what it does mean is if City appeal the process in a civil court, the court will only consider evidence post February 2017.
From my understanding, most of what we're charged with is pre-2017, so would be thrown out if we appealed the process used in a UK Court of Law.
I was hearing so many scenarios at first, that I thought the PL had charged us, & were seeking the evidence to support their accusations, but that's definitely not the case.
The PL have charged us, disclosed their evidence to City & given it to the PL Adjudication panel to consider ahead of a hearing.
City have disclosed our evidence, & are now waiting for the hearing date, & that's where things get a bit odd. If the PL have charged us & disclosed their evidence to us & their panel, why all the estimates the whole process could take up to four years?
I get there are thousands of pages of documents & witness testimonies, but surely it can be resolved before then?
There are new claims the case will be heard commencing September 2024, with a verdict being reached by summer 2025, notwithstanding any delays.
City maintain we have irrefutable evidence & are confident of our innocence. As you say, many of the charges have already been heard & dismissed by CAS, so the reason this has all resurfaced is because of the Der Spiegel "evidence" which was gained through hacking.
We were also sanctioned by UEFA in 2014 for the majority of these charges, so it's difficult to see how the PL can charge us again.
We submit our financial reports to the PL, & they submit them to UEFA. The PL are seemingly claiming this constitutes two sets of breaches, because if we've lied to UEFA, we've defacto lied to the PL too. But what about the double jeopardy of being charged twice for the same alleged breaches? ¯\_(⊙_ʖ⊙)_/¯
Again, there's the lawful reporting of a crime. If the PL believe we've committed accounting fraud, they're duty bound by law to alert the authorities, whereby it'll become a criminal matter.
None of this has happened, because if they were to make this move, it would drag our auditors, sponsors, the Abu Dhabi Government & the Abu Dhabi Royal Family into the equation, which at the very least would cause a diplomatic incident, whereby the UK would be accusing Abu Dhabi of being fraudsters & crooks.
After rowing back on a 2021 investment commitment to the UK because of the mess caused by Doris & Truss, Sunak was seen as a steadying hand & Grant Schapps got the investment deal back on track, but at a reduced initial £10bn.
The Tories are desperate for this investment, so you can imagine their rage when the PL reared its turkey head with talk of charging us on the instructions of the Hateful Eight.
The Abu Dhabi investment deal was resurrected in January 2023. A month later the government gave the PL notice of an Independent Regulator for Football. The PL obviously panicked, & three days later City were charged.
The UK Government has bigger fish to fry, & too much to lose just to placate the Red Top Mafia & Spuds over trumped up football related charges.
Given the latest date for a General Election is January 28th 2025, the Tories will want Abu Dhabi's investment on their balance sheet, so they can justify tax cut bribes for their mates.
I very much doubt they'll allow FFP to hinder their re-election bid in any way shape or form. To qualify this, the Independent Regulator of Football will be setup in shadow form before 2024, & because it was in the King's Speech, it will be enacted BEFORE the next election.
Government ministers have already said they'll act retrospectively in the interests of the game, so quite how this will effect the PL's frivolous charges against us, remains of great interest.
The Government's wording & comments surrounding this seem to suggest, they're stepping in to take control of English & Welsh football, lock, stock & two smoking barrels.
City seem relaxed & confident about the charges. The PL seem to be shitting themselves & confused as what to do next.
The last time football authorities fucked with City, Platini & Blatter were arrested, charged, found guilty & banned from football.
Then on UEFA's behalf, the PL chose to pick a fight with us, & they've gone on to lose regulatory control of their Premier League cash cow. Coincidence? \0/
By unfairly pursuing City, the PL have inadvertently killed the goose that lays their gold eggs. ¯\_(⊙_ʖ⊙)_/¯
Whatever will be will be, but after initially being calm over the situation, then extremely worried, I've taken proper stock & now I'm very relaxed about the whole matter. Our owner & Khaldoon have got this.
Man City and the Premier League agree date for trial https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12809173/Man-City-Premier-League-agree-date-tribunal-financial-rule-break-charges.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton